Hoi, I have the idea that you are making projecting issues of the GPL on the GFDL. The GPL insists that you have to provide source code. As far as I can see, the GFDL does not. This is reasonable because a book can be published on paper under the GFDL. It is not necessary to provide a digital version as well. Thanks, GerardM
On 7/23/07, Daniel Arnold arnomane@gmx.de wrote:
Hi,
At first let me point out that I appreciate the hard work of people that want to improve our projects. Please let us acknowledge the work of Erik, even if you think like me that his proposal is _definitely_ not the way to go. It's all about AGF. ;-) So please let us brainstorm how to turn this into a good opportunity for all of us without sacrificing parts of our goals and independence.
Two different things were not made clear in Eriks proposal and consequently were mixed in follow up mails: a) Allowed media formats for _uploading_ files. b) Provided media formats for _downloading_ files.
Allowing Flash Video for _upload_ is not acceptable in our projects for the named reasons of patent problems and (at least partly) proprietary software.
Providing Flash Video additionally for _download_ does not conflict with the GFDL or whatever (as you provide along side this copy as well a free format copy of the same content). This is as well the reason why e.g. providing TomeRaider _downloads_ of Wikipedia is in agreement with our understanding of digital freedom.
As pointed out by various people providing Flash Video for download means transcoding. As all relevant video formats are lossy you cannot transcode Ogg-Theora to let's say Mpeg (or any other particular codec used by Flash Video) without quality loss.
So Flash Video is a nice to have _second class_ alternative - a mere convenience for our users. But who wants to get the best quality will always use the original OGG-Theora files.
Philosophy aside here an analysis of current technical problems:
- Wikimedia Commons badly needs a download service for the whole media
file repository. 2. The media repository of Comons is so overwhelmingly large that it would need a lot of bandwith and download time even with broad band internet access. 3. Audio and Video streaming requires a lot of bandwith but it doesn't require sophisticated CPU intensive database queries and special designed software (aka MediaWiki). 4. Many organisations especially universities (I could name you at least one concrete example) want to support us with technical infrastructure but it is very complicated to integrate these kind donations into our technical infrastructure. Thus we are wasting a lot of donation potential beside money.
Proposed solution:
- We provide an Rsync download of our media files for selected third
party mirror servers. Rsync is specifically designed for such a purpose and is exeptionally bandwith saving on mirroring files where parts are constantly changing. 2. These selected third party mirrors are collected in a Round-Robin-Queue. Everytime a user directly wants to download the original file (and not a thumbnail, preview or the image page in the wiki) in Wikipedia (or another Wikimedia project) he is being redirected to this very file on a mirror out of this queue and downloads it there as usual via HTTP (just the download link changes, he even won't realise in most cases that he has been redirected for this download). 3. In case mirrors don't want to host the whole database we could provide them some filters for mirroring, e.g. Ogg files only. Ogg mirroring would make the most benefit for our infrastructure and audio/video streaming, as full images are downloaded relatively seldom.
This would make all these things possible:
- Download of Wikimedia Commons media database via mirrors.
- Saves us quite some bandwith especially at audio and video (you need to
download the real file for streaming).
- Easy drop in and drop out of single third party supporters.
- Not dependent from one exclusive partner. We maintain our independence
and increase technical failure resitance by reducing the single point of failure problem.
In case you fear the problem of license issues (providing the copyright infos alongside the files) this can be solved without troubles, too. There is static.wikipedia.org Just transfer the static html image wiki pages of Commons as well to the single mirrors and we're perfectly done (and third party mirrors can create their own software interface around that thing if they want).
Cheers, Arnomane
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l